Why Can't We All Just Get Along...

Twitter people will know that I spent a hefty percentage of yesterday banging on with some idealistic pseudophilosophy, but given that Pastor Terry Jones is still intent on burning the Koran on 9/11 *sic* (don't know why he can't just go back to doing the 'bishop on the landing' sketch) and a radical Muslim leader calling for retaliatory US flag burning (should be grateful it's not retaliatory US citizen burning), clearly the world has learnt nothing from several millennia of Eastern and Western philosophy. This means it's about time for Or So I Thought... to lay down some precepts of its own.

The First and most important precept is that regardless of other people's beliefs/religions/philosophy, Or So I Thought... and its readers shall not attempt to belittle or indoctrinate (apart from Scientology... that's fair game). The best example I can use to illustrate this is that I don't like Hip-Hop, I don't 'get' Hip-Hop but I'm not going to tell someone that likes it that they're living a lie and should face the empirical fact that AOR is better, because no actual good can come of it. Which brings us neatly to:

The Second is that the illusion of empiricism has caused too much philosophical hate and, as compelling as empirical evidence is, it does not automatically give its subscribers a right to be maladroit about it. Heavily linked to the first, this precept is again designed to stop people antagonising people of different belief systems. The most important tenet of this philosophy is choice. If a person is happy with the choice they've made philosophically, telling them that they're wrong, thrusting evidence, no matter how definitive, in their faces and forcing them to lose any faith they once held in anything (there being a God, there being no God, there being multiple gods etc.) is simply not going to solve any of the world's problems, many of which have in fact been caused by non-adherence to this precept.

The example most prescient here is the rather militant branch of Atheism that has emerged in the last few years. Several figures (I won't mention names) have developed somewhat of a cult of personality around themselves and have made themselves, or in some cases have inadvertently become, a god to their followers and have since used the excuse of empiricism as a shield for self-righteousness and the belittling of others. Now, I'm not saying for a moment that Atheists are more culpable than any other philosophy (Christianity has been guilty of this a number of times throughout history, ditto Islam and in Modern History perhaps the Gaza conflict is an apt example, all of which think that they have evidence too), however they ('they' is a word I'll use a lot. I'm yet to find a satisfactory school of philosophy) are the most recent example and, even then, in no way am I referring to all Atheists, but rather a select group. Naturally Evolutionary Science should be taught in schools and not Creationism, however in a good deal of writing and broadcasting there's a tendency to take a stance of aggression and sanctimony (I'm sure they'd hate the irony of many of the nouns and adjectives that I've used throughout this piece). There's a difference, albeit a fine one, between letting empiricism speak for itself and using it as an excuse for the abasement of others.

In extreme layman's terms- just because you're right, there's no need to be a dick about it.

The Third is that conflict in the name of this or any philiosophy is wrong. What happened to the good old days of wars for resources... like oil and... oh...
On a serious note, historical conflict based on simple greed or territorial disputes instead of forcing one's philosophy on another group of people and therefore subjugating them, in which the aforementioned reasons are invariably given as an excuse (Crusades, Nazis etc.), were far less embarrassing for all involved. (See: Alexander the Great, Napoleon, etc.)

In Summary:
1) The Philosophy of Respect - Treat all other philosophies with respect. Life is far too short to ruin other people's happiness and the knowledge that you've done so but are right will be of little comfort in this ultimately futile existence.
2) The Illuisory Shield of Empiricism - Empiricism is worthless if it cannot be delivered with tact. Think of the humility and savoir faire with which Darwin presented his evidence and strive to do the same.
3) The Disrepute of Philosophical Conflict - The rights and wrongs of one and another's philosophies should never be considered a satisfactory rationalisation for conflict.

Phew, to quote the brilliant Nick Mohammed's Mr. Swallow - "It's not very funny this bit, is it?!"


Samuel E Robinson has an AS level in Philosophy, but a Masters in Pseudophilosophy from the University of Life... ahem...